niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ.  <sep>  Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different? A: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you know of any examples where this happens?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ.  <sep>  Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different? A: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience  Q: Do you know of any examples where this happens? A: For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else is different between air order and DVD order, do you have any facts?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ.  <sep>  Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different? A: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience  Q: Do you know of any examples where this happens? A: For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december  Q: What else is different between air order and DVD order, do you have any facts? A: Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Please can you tell me more about this topic?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ.  <sep>  Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different? A: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I don't see the reason for it, does this mean one way is out of sequence?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience of the channel or network airing a series with a number of pre-recorded episodes or at least a batch of them. For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december, if they air episodes 1 and 2 but the christmas episode of the series is the number 10, they will air the 10th episode as the 3rd one to coincide wih the holidays. Other scenario is when something happens in the real world and the series has an episode that deals with a similar theme. Take as an example the shootings that happened in France recently. Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism, other may try to cash on it and air sooner an episode that dealed with something similar. Also, a network can try to get people into watching their series and getting high ratings, airing the "best" episodes of a series first (i.e. the ones with the more action, or drama, or sex, etc.). Then, when the series go to DVD the numbering order is usually the scripted order and not the airing one, that's why both differ.  <sep>  Q: What is the reason that the air order and the DVD order of a tv show is different? A: It seems to be mostly due to the convenience  Q: Do you know of any examples where this happens? A: For example, when a network buys or syndicates a series that has, let's say, 10 episodes and start airing the episodes in december  Q: What else is different between air order and DVD order, do you have any facts? A: Some networks will alter the airing order of episodes in a series to avoid a similar subject to avoid the sensationalism  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does this mean that separating subjects means people tune in more?
Output: No
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is that theory based on?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  Q: What is that theory based on? A: ts because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't car  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How can Ryan from The Office take over a senior position without any experience?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  Q: What is that theory based on? A: ts because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't car  Q: How can Ryan from The Office take over a senior position without any experience? A: because its a paper company, and who cares about paper  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about The Office?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  Q: What is that theory based on? A: ts because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't car  Q: How can Ryan from The Office take over a senior position without any experience? A: because its a paper company, and who cares about paper  Q: What else can you tell me about The Office? A: all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Please tell me more, do you have any other facts?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  Q: What is that theory based on? A: ts because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't car  Q: How can Ryan from The Office take over a senior position without any experience? A: because its a paper company, and who cares about paper  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to Jan after he took over as vice president?
Output: No
CONTEXT: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  Q: What is that theory based on? A: ts because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't car  Q: How can Ryan from The Office take over a senior position without any experience? A: because its a paper company, and who cares about paper  Q: What else can you tell me about The Office? A: all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What other branches are there?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do you think John wanted to do this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself  Q: Why do you think John wanted to do this? A: we can only speculate at what John actually saw  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you shed any other light on his motives or his background?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself  Q: Why do you think John wanted to do this? A: we can only speculate at what John actually saw  Q: Can you shed any other light on his motives or his background? A: Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster  Q: What about the monster, is there some deeper meaning there? A: in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other facts that you would like to share?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself  Q: Why do you think John wanted to do this? A: we can only speculate at what John actually saw  Q: Can you shed any other light on his motives or his background? A: Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Locke is an interesting character, can you tell me anything else about him?
Output: No
CONTEXT: This is a case of two extremes. Remy Danton gets pulled over for speeding but doesn't have his license or registration on him. He asks the cop for a break but becomes a victim of racial profiling and is slammed on the hood of the car. After he tells the officers to "google" him to verify his identity, we see the opposite extreme and he is given special treatment due to his position by being let off the hook. He doesn't want to be judged or given particular treatment be it good or bad. He simply wants to be treated like a normal person like everyone else. Note this is my own analysis of the scene, I don't have any sources indicating that was the intended purpose of the scene but I think it was simply there for character arc development.  <sep>  Q: Why did Remy demand the speeding ticket?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is a case of two extremes. Remy Danton gets pulled over for speeding but doesn't have his license or registration on him. He asks the cop for a break but becomes a victim of racial profiling and is slammed on the hood of the car. After he tells the officers to "google" him to verify his identity, we see the opposite extreme and he is given special treatment due to his position by being let off the hook. He doesn't want to be judged or given particular treatment be it good or bad. He simply wants to be treated like a normal person like everyone else. Note this is my own analysis of the scene, I don't have any sources indicating that was the intended purpose of the scene but I think it was simply there for character arc development.  <sep>  Q: Why did Remy demand the speeding ticket? A: He doesn't want to be judged or given particular treatment be it good or bad  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the superior officer act properly by releasing Remy?
Output: No
CONTEXT: No, this was never released on film. The The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive records most theater productions for archival purposes, but only makes them available to qualified researchers. Typically, if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video. You would then submit the timestamps of the sections you wish to use, restricted to some varying short amount of time, and then you would be provided with only those segments on a disc without the watermark. Many major filmhouses do this as well. There's a very famous one whose name escapes me at the moment which deals with live concert footage, they were the first ones known to have the Rush show from Capital Theater in 1976 (which has since been officially released by Rush) as well as a Boston concert from 1979, among a large selection of others.  <sep>  Q: was waiting for godet released on film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, this was never released on film. The The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive records most theater productions for archival purposes, but only makes them available to qualified researchers. Typically, if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video. You would then submit the timestamps of the sections you wish to use, restricted to some varying short amount of time, and then you would be provided with only those segments on a disc without the watermark. Many major filmhouses do this as well. There's a very famous one whose name escapes me at the moment which deals with live concert footage, they were the first ones known to have the Rush show from Capital Theater in 1976 (which has since been officially released by Rush) as well as a Boston concert from 1979, among a large selection of others.  <sep>  Q: was waiting for godet released on film? A: this was never released on film  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there footage available anywhere?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, this was never released on film. The The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive records most theater productions for archival purposes, but only makes them available to qualified researchers. Typically, if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video. You would then submit the timestamps of the sections you wish to use, restricted to some varying short amount of time, and then you would be provided with only those segments on a disc without the watermark. Many major filmhouses do this as well. There's a very famous one whose name escapes me at the moment which deals with live concert footage, they were the first ones known to have the Rush show from Capital Theater in 1976 (which has since been officially released by Rush) as well as a Boston concert from 1979, among a large selection of others.  <sep>  Q: was waiting for godet released on film? A: this was never released on film  Q: Is there footage available anywhere? A: if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where do I need to go to find out if i am qualified?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, this was never released on film. The The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive records most theater productions for archival purposes, but only makes them available to qualified researchers. Typically, if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video. You would then submit the timestamps of the sections you wish to use, restricted to some varying short amount of time, and then you would be provided with only those segments on a disc without the watermark. Many major filmhouses do this as well. There's a very famous one whose name escapes me at the moment which deals with live concert footage, they were the first ones known to have the Rush show from Capital Theater in 1976 (which has since been officially released by Rush) as well as a Boston concert from 1979, among a large selection of others.  <sep>  Q: was waiting for godet released on film? A: this was never released on film  Q: Is there footage available anywhere? A: if you are deemed qualified you will receive a copy of the production with a very large watermark running across the video  Q: Where do I need to go to find out if i am qualified? A: The New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this the only copy available?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what does this mean, How can people do this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller  Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying? A: One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller  Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying? A: One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced  Q: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes? A: Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other facts about the travellers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the similarities are coincidental. The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program, and his band is rejected for being "too loud." In talking about the filming of the scene, Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence during the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance. As a frustrated musician, I was in my glory, learning the guitar chords and lead solo arrangements, as well as working with a choreographer to mimic and incorporate into the production number the signature styles and stage moves of my rock and roll heroes.” (Lucky Man: A Memoir, p, 144) Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration.  <sep>  Q: Was the Johnny B. Goode scene from Back to The Future inspired from Top Secret?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the similarities are coincidental. The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program, and his band is rejected for being "too loud." In talking about the filming of the scene, Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence during the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance. As a frustrated musician, I was in my glory, learning the guitar chords and lead solo arrangements, as well as working with a choreographer to mimic and incorporate into the production number the signature styles and stage moves of my rock and roll heroes.” (Lucky Man: A Memoir, p, 144) Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration.  <sep>  Q: Was the Johnny B. Goode scene from Back to The Future inspired from Top Secret? A: I think the similarities are coincidental  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the similarities between the two films?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the similarities are coincidental. The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program, and his band is rejected for being "too loud." In talking about the filming of the scene, Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence during the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance. As a frustrated musician, I was in my glory, learning the guitar chords and lead solo arrangements, as well as working with a choreographer to mimic and incorporate into the production number the signature styles and stage moves of my rock and roll heroes.” (Lucky Man: A Memoir, p, 144) Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration.  <sep>  Q: Was the Johnny B. Goode scene from Back to The Future inspired from Top Secret? A: I think the similarities are coincidental  Q: What are the similarities between the two films? A: Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the scene?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the similarities are coincidental. The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program, and his band is rejected for being "too loud." In talking about the filming of the scene, Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence during the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance. As a frustrated musician, I was in my glory, learning the guitar chords and lead solo arrangements, as well as working with a choreographer to mimic and incorporate into the production number the signature styles and stage moves of my rock and roll heroes.” (Lucky Man: A Memoir, p, 144) Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration.  <sep>  Q: Was the Johnny B. Goode scene from Back to The Future inspired from Top Secret? A: I think the similarities are coincidental  Q: What are the similarities between the two films? A: Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration  Q: What else can you tell me about the scene? A: The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there similarities between the two songs in the films?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think the similarities are coincidental. The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program, and his band is rejected for being "too loud." In talking about the filming of the scene, Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence during the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance. As a frustrated musician, I was in my glory, learning the guitar chords and lead solo arrangements, as well as working with a choreographer to mimic and incorporate into the production number the signature styles and stage moves of my rock and roll heroes.” (Lucky Man: A Memoir, p, 144) Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration.  <sep>  Q: Was the Johnny B. Goode scene from Back to The Future inspired from Top Secret? A: I think the similarities are coincidental  Q: What are the similarities between the two films? A: Top Secret was actually a parody of Elvis films (imdb, Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes), so it had a different inspiration  Q: What else can you tell me about the scene? A: The Johnny B. Goode scene ties directly back to the start of the film, where Marty is auditioning for the school program  Q: Do you have any other facts to share? A: Michael J. Fox says, "My favorite part of the original Back to the Future, filmed in 1985, was the Johnny B. Goode sequence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else did MJ Fox enjoy about the film?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress? A: there is a reason for it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you suppose the reason to be?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress? A: there is a reason for it  Q: What do you suppose the reason to be? A: Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything else about the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress? A: there is a reason for it  Q: What do you suppose the reason to be? A: Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How much do her scars bother her?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress? A: there is a reason for it  Q: What do you suppose the reason to be? A: Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where does she have scars?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress? A: there is a reason for it  Q: What do you suppose the reason to be? A: Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings  Q: Can you tell me anything else about the movie? A: normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else do you feel about the movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: A first person account of what exactly?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot? A: There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: That's interesting, what else can you tell me about the production?
Output: Yes